Obama creates bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt

[R1]

Deficit spending has not been too huge yet, imo., except with the military and
perhaps insurance and banking executive bailouts.

Our way to a relatively low orbit is almost about to be matched by developing nations.
(But the space deals are on a nearby thread, and with more detail and discussion.)

Europe has blazing-fast fiberoptic internet speed limits, almost twice of the U.S., iirc.
They also have the LHC, by the way, which not long ago broke the world record on energy speed.
And Poland or some country near it was developing a moon-lander with camera for a contest recently.
The launch from earth, iirc, was to be from a high altitude balloon.

 

[bearack]

OK. Let's assume all of that is true and I won't even argue the merits of your figures.

Since I bet the vast majority of that $100 billion is going to non-wealthy people... you've just taken $5 or $100 billion of very volatile cash out of our economy. How many small businesses did you just put out of business? How much of that money was coming back to the US government in tax revenue anyway?

I agree with kerberos here. None.... You're making a circular argument and can be applied to any reduction. Canceling project Constellation took billions out of the market, it also cost thousands of jobs. I heard on the news recently that the canceling of the Constellation program will lead to approximately 1500 layoffs at Ball Aerospace alone.

You asked me to put up or shut up and I provided one prime example of where government has become stupid with their spending.

My company was only 70% of gross margin this year with a projected 30% decrease in revenue for the 2011 fiscal year. Maximum raises this year were only 1% while a majority opted out of raises this year in order to save jobs. That is fiscally correct. The government should do the same in tough economic times. Not continue the status quo!

 

[dragon04]

This may or may not be a reasonable suggestion, but if either party single-handedly offerred this solution here is how it would be recieved by they other:

THEY want to cut funding for our troops!
THEY want to balance the budget on the backs of our poor, elderly and sick!
No party can propose these kinds of ideas withotu the support of the other party --- that's why a bipartisan apporach that looks at the whole budget is necessary.

The commission is tasked with coming up with real SPECIFIC recommendations, not vague soundbites. If you are going to mock it, then come up with something specific, and demonstrate how it is going to be achieved politically.

I believe I already have come up with "something specific". Actually, I've made these suggestions repeatedly over the last few years on this Forum. But, in the spirit of mockery, let me do it again. I'll type slowly this time.

1. Cut defense spending and close all but the most strategic bases on foreign soil.

2. Privatize Social Security

3. Adhere to and enforce standards and rules set forth in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 signed into LAW by President Clinton.

Eliminate or restructure all non-essential social programs. Encourage public fiinancial support of the programs by offering attractive tax incentives for charitable donations to the targeted programs.

That's just for starters. I can mock and think at the same time quite easily.

 

[MasterComposter]

I believe I already have come up with "something specific". Actually, I've made these suggestions repeatedly over the last few years on this Forum. But, in the spirit of mockery, let me do it again. I'll type slowly this time.

1. Cut defense spending and close all but the most strategic bases on foreign soil.

2. Privatize Social Security

3. Adhere to and enforce standards and rules set forth in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 signed into LAW by President Clinton.

Eliminate or restructure all non-essential social programs. Encourage public fiinancial support of the programs by offering attractive tax incentives for charitable donations to the targeted programs.

That's just for starters. I can mock and think at the same time quite easily.

The part of your earlier post I was responding to was this:

I also bet I can find another $300 Billion in streamlining, eliminating and privatizing all other Federally funded programs.

And the part of my response you cut out was this:

BTW, if the president or any other politician suggested we could save $300 billion by simply "streamlining, eliminating and privatizing" he would be universally mocked. That is not in any way specific and is basically a throwaway soundbite that sounds great but has no value.
What specifically is invloved with "streamlining?"
What specifically gets "eliminated?"
What specifically gets "privatized?"
How much does each specific proposal save?

Your response above does not answer those questions.

1. Cut defense spending and close all but the most strategic bases on foreign soil.

This was a separate part of your earlier post, not the part I was asking about. But since you bring it up again, you had said earlier you could save $300 billion this way. What specifically gets cut (more specific than "spending"). What bases get closed? How much does it save (does it add up to $300 billion you mentioned)? How do you achieve it politically?

2. Privatize Social Security

This was a separate part of your earlier post, not the part I was asking about. But since you bring it up again, how much does this save? How does it affect benefits? How do you achieve it politically, especially afte the last year in which private retirement accounts have taken a beating, and the only secure retirement account left is Social Security?

3. Adhere to and enforce standards and rules set forth in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 signed into LAW by President Clinton.

This example is probably getting to my question --- something specific. I'm not familiar with this. How much of the $300 billion you mentioned does this save?

Eliminate or restructure all non-essential social programs. Encourage public fiinancial support of the programs by offering attractive tax incentives for charitable donations to the targeted programs.

What specifically gets cut (more specific than "non-essential social programs"). How much does it save (does it add up to $300 billion you mentioned)? How much do the new tax incentives cost? How do you achieve it politically?



My point was that everyone supports vague ideas of cutting wasteful spending, streamlining, cutting non-essential programs etc., especially if promised it will save billions and billions of dollars. It's when you get to the specifics that all hell breaks lose. If you say you can save $300 billion by "streamlining, eliminating and privatizing," you need to get specific, or it's just a bunch of BS to oversimplify the issue.

 

[phaze]

Privatizing Social Security... yeah.... we really need the balls of this country MORE in the hands of GS and co.

:lol:

 

[MasterComposter]

Privatizing Social Security... yeah.... we really need the balls of this country MORE in the hands of GS and co.

:lol:

Yeah... After everyone I know watched their 401ks and IRAs drop by about half last year, I think maybe you're going to have trouble convincing people that's the way to go. Personally, i think everyone should have a 401k and IRA and other investments too, but "privatizing" the one solid-gold annuity that didn't drop in value during the last year would be stupid.

 

[Kerberos]

Who are we to tell someone that they have to let the government control their money for their own good? Why not let them make their own decisions whether they want to be part of the Social Security system?

 

[MasterComposter]

Who are we to tell someone that they have to let the government control their money for their own good? Why not let them make their own decisions whether they want to be part of the Social Security system?

I'm not telling anyone that. I'm saying that the idea of privatizing Social Security will totally unpopular. Pepple will not WANT to give it up. And as I understand it, "privatizing" social security does not mean you stop telling people they have to contribute --- it means you tell them they MUST risk their money to the market.

 

[Kerberos]

No one would have to risk their money in the market. If they are uncomfortable with higher-paying but riskier investments, they can always put their retirement money in low-paying but safe investments like CDs or savings accounts. Even that would match or outgain what the government gets for your money.

Anyway, my point is not to force elderly people out of SS if that's where they wish to remain. My complaint is with the condescending attitude of the government that they know best for individuals and that no one should be allowed to opt out of the system.

 

[MasterComposter]

No one would have to risk their money in the market. If they are uncomfortable with higher-paying but riskier investments, they can always put their retirement money in low-paying but safe investments like CDs or savings accounts. Even that would match or outgain what the government gets for your money.

Anyway, my point is not to force elderly people out of SS if that's where they wish to remain. My complaint is with the condescending attitude of the government that they know best for individuals and that no one should be allowed to opt out of the system.

Maybe one of the at least 7 Republicans on the bipartisan commission will suggest this. They have a seat at the table. They can suggest whatever they want.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

What happens to those who opt out of the system and LOSE everything in risky ventures and find themselves impoverished and starving in their old age?

I'll tell you what happens. Society ends up footing the bill for their room and board and meals in homes for the indigent. We all pay no matter what.

I personally think Social Security is a good idea and a good thing. It doesn't help that the feds have "borrowed" over a trillion dollars from the SSTF three times over the last 25 years and to my knowledge have never paid it back.

Funny how Ronald Reagan was all about "Government isn't the solution to our problems, government is the problem." And yet he had no qualms about "borrowing" several hundred billion from that bad old socialist intstitution that is Social Security to save his ass.

There should be a Constitutional Amendment forbidding ANY government "borrowing" of the SSTF. And it's not a goddamn entitlement. I've paid into it for 32 years, and will continue to pay into it for the next 23 years until I'm 70. (Jeez. That's scary that 70 is only 23 years away. 22 years aint squat.)

 

[Kerberos]

What happens to those who opt out of the system and LOSE everything in risky ventures and find themselves impoverished and starving in their old age?

The same thing that happens to those now who are in the system and lose everything except their SS in risky ventures and find themselves impoverished and starving in old age. "Society ends up footing the bill for their room and board and meals in homes for the indigent." Very few people can live only on what little SS pays them.

But at least people should have the right to invest their own money, without some pompous ass in Washington telling them they are too stupid to be trusted with their own money.

And finally, if we are hell-bent on forcing people to have a retirement, at least let them invest it in CDs or something where they can get more for it. That should be safe enough even for the most arrogant politicians in Washington, unless it's just control they're worried about and not the welfare of the people.

 

[MannyPim]

What happens to those who opt out of the system and LOSE everything in risky ventures and find themselves impoverished and starving in their old age?

I'll tell you what happens. Society ends up footing the bill for their room and board and meals in homes for the indigent. We all pay no matter what.

I personally think Social Security is a good idea and a good thing. It doesn't help that the feds have "borrowed" over a trillion dollars from the SSTF three times over the last 25 years and to my knowledge have never paid it back.

Funny how Ronald Reagan was all about "Government isn't the solution to our problems, government is the problem." And yet he had no qualms about "borrowing" several hundred billion from that bad old socialist intstitution that is Social Security to save his ass.

There should be a Constitutional Amendment forbidding ANY government "borrowing" of the SSTF. And it's not a goddamn entitlement. I've paid into it for 32 years, and will continue to pay into it for the next 23 years until I'm 70. (Jeez. That's scary that 70 is only 23 years away. 22 years aint squat.)

A Constitutional ammendment would not help much... after all, when many of the fundamental Constitutional principles have been trampled, what's to guarantee that a new Ammendment wouldn't be ?

And there is a certain irony in passing a Constitutional ammendment to prohibit the government from messing with money which was collected by Unconstitutional means... It's quite clear that the Federal Government does NOT have the power to run a retirement plan.... and even if they had the power, they don't have the ability to do it nor are they worthy of being trusted with that responsibility. They have badly designed the program, FAILED to adapt it to changing demographics and have allowed the situation to worsen over the decades to crisis proportions... all that besides the fact that they have raided the fund repeatedly.... A private company playing those kinds of games with a pension fund or failing so miserably in its fiduciary / custodial responsibilities would certainly be brought up on charges and serverely punished by the government....

 

[phaze]

Political self-preservation is a pretty pitiful excuse for recklessly spending billions and running up huge debts.

I agree with you that we have a big problem and it's going to take many years to deal with, that's just the nature of the disaster we've created these last couple of years. But the easy part is to stop making it worse. It's no secret that the first step to getting out of debt is to stop digging the hole deeper. There's still a lot of money from the failed stimulus package not yet spent that could be canceled and saved. And the Administration and Congress are talking about spending billions more in another package. What's the point of calling for a commission to study ways to cut the deficit when the people calling for it can't even stop spending more money?

CBO: Stimulus bill created up to 2.1 million jobs
WASHINGTON – The economic stimulus law added between 1 million to 2.1 million workers to employment rolls by the end of last year, a new report released Tuesday by congressional economists said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study also said the $862 billion stimulus added between 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points to the growth of the economy in 2009. The controversial stimulus law combined tax breaks for individuals and businesses with lots of government spending.

The report reflects agreement among economists that the measure boosted the economy. But the wide range of estimates means it won't resolve the debate over how effective the stimulus has been.

The White House says the stimulus bill has created 2 million jobs and will add another 1.5 million this year as economic recovery continues to take hold.

CBO projects that the stimulus measure to have a greater impact this year, boosting gross domestic product by 1.4 to 4 percentage points and lowering the unemployment rate by 0.7 to 1.8 percentage points.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_ ... mulus_jobs

 

[Kerberos]

Oh, I'm sure the White House says a lot of things. Like how the Stimulus Bill would keep unemployment under eight percent. Oops. :mrgreen:

 

[R1]

Unemployment in Va. is about 6.9% or so, iirc.
And what about SC., didn't SC 'refuse' all economic and recovery stimuli ?


------------------------------------------------------

What happens to those who opt out of the system and LOSE everything in risky ventures and find themselves impoverished and starving in their old age?... Society ends up footing the bill for their room and board and meals in homes for the indigent...

Funny how Ronald Reagan was all about "Government isn't the solution to our problems, government is the problem." And yet he had no qualms about "borrowing" several hundred billion from that bad old socialist intstitution that is Social Security to save his ass...

Would privatizing SS take money away from U.S. bonds? ...Or in to them?

 

[ZenGalacticore]

What happens to those who opt out of the system and LOSE everything in risky ventures and find themselves impoverished and starving in their old age?

The same thing that happens to those now who are in the system and lose everything except their SS in risky ventures and find themselves impoverished and starving in old age. "Society ends up footing the bill for their room and board and meals in homes for the indigent." Very few people can live only on what little SS pays them.

I'm talking about the scenario where those who opt out of SS, OPT out! Give them back all the $ they've paid into it in one lump sum and be done with it. When millions of those who opted out blow, lose, or poorly invest and wind up in poverty at 62 or 65, all of us end up taking care of such individuals anyway. That was my point.

And no one's stopping anyone from investing whatever take-home money he is able to invest. Soc Sec is a final safety net of at least money for food and threadbare room. But threadbare room is better than no room at all.

But at least people should have the right to invest their own money,

People do have a right to invest their own money.

 

[bearack]

People do have a right to invest their own money.

Not the SS funds they are obligated to pay. We're talking about using those funds to do what ever type of investing a person wants. Heck, a good whole life policy is a hell of allot better than SS returns.

 

[docm]

Remember how much Hell was raised by the LibDems when Bush II proposed letting folks invest, in Federally screened and approved instruments, just 5% of their donations? Jeezzzzz..... talk about demagoguery :roll:

 

[MannyPim]

Remember how much Hell was raised by the LibDems when Bush II proposed letting folks invest, in Federally screened and approved instruments, just 5% of their donations? Jeezzzzz..... talk about demagoguery :roll:

I remembered it as being even more modest than that... I thought it was 2%...
And it was on a VOLUNTARY basis... If you trusted the government so much, you could still have them take the full 100% tax instead of just 98%.

It was a ridiculously meek and gradual step and the oposition rose up like Bush was going to shut down SS that very same year!
By contrast, when an actual gigantic power grab is taking place, based on wild and irrational projections and fraudulent cost accounting (the $900 B obamacare, if all the accounting tricks are taken out, will actually cost $2.5 to $3 TRILLION) the Dems seem totally unpreturbed by it.

The problem was this: even that mild and timid 2% step woudl eventually show the wisdom of getting away form government dependency and the rewards of using our Constitutionally guaranteed Freedom. Once that genie came out of the bottle, people would all take the 2% option and then begin to demand higher percentages be put under our control rather then Washington's. Eventually that would lead to a near total dissolution of the entire SS system.... And THAT, Democrats could not abide.... once they have their hooks into your money and get control of portions of yoru life, they don't let go...

 

[MasterComposter]

This thread is about the bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt and the budget deficit. Are these ideas about privatizing social security or allowing people to invest some portion of their social security withholding related to reducing the deficit and the debt? If so, how much will it save? How do you achieve it politically?

 

[MasterComposter]

The problem was this: even that mild and timid 2% step woudl eventually show the wisdom of getting away form government dependency and the rewards of using our Constitutionally guaranteed Freedom. Once that genie came out of the bottle, people would all take the 2% option and then begin to demand higher percentages be put under our control rather then Washington's.

Is this why people are always so happy when a company decides to do away with a defined benefit pension and switch to a defined contribution system like a 401k? People just LOVE that.

 

[bearack]

This thread is about the bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt and the budget deficit. Are these ideas about privatizing social security or allowing people to invest some portion of their social security withholding related to reducing the deficit and the debt? If so, how much will it save? How do you achieve it politically?

When you have more going out than coming it, that would be considered a "deficit" or if you like, "in the red" if that is better suited.

 

[MannyPim]

The problem was this: even that mild and timid 2% step woudl eventually show the wisdom of getting away form government dependency and the rewards of using our Constitutionally guaranteed Freedom. Once that genie came out of the bottle, people would all take the 2% option and then begin to demand higher percentages be put under our control rather then Washington's.

Is this why people are always so happy when a company decides to do away with a defined benefit pension and switch to a defined contribution system like a 401k? People just LOVE that.

Then WHY NOT let people have the choice ??? According to your logic, no one would take that option anyway... so what's the harm ?

Isn't "pro-choice" the politically correct position to take ?

 

[MasterComposter]

This thread is about the bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt and the budget deficit. Are these ideas about privatizing social security or allowing people to invest some portion of their social security withholding related to reducing the deficit and the debt? If so, how much will it save? How do you achieve it politically?

When you have more going out than coming it, that would be considered a "deficit" or if you like, "in the red" if that is better suited.

I understand the concept of deficits and being "in the red." I'm asking how "privatizing" Social Security or allowing people to invest some portion of their social security withholding reduces the deficit and the debt. How much does it save?

For example, if starting today you allowed everyone to divert all of their Social Security contributions to a private account instead of to the Social Security system, how would that affect the deficit and the debt? Seems to me it would balloon the deficit and debt astronimically. Without new contributions, where is the money going to come from for paying current benefits? Money has to go out to pay current benefits, and that money comes in from curent contributions. Wothout current contributions coming in, more goes out than comes in, and as you said "When you have more going out than coming it, that would be considered a "deficit" or if you like, "in the red" if that is better suited."

Explain to me how this idea helps with the deficit and the debt.